From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>
> > I don't see any justification for the claim that
> > namespaces are disjoint from HTTP resources.
>
> Certainly, one of the greatest powers of the Semantic Web is that it
> will enable us to be precise about what a certain URI "means" within a
> particular context. Using an HTTP URI for a property name is useful
> because you can do a GET on it, but not all HTTP URIs are
> dereferencable, so a processor would need to be told that a URI is
> vancable (or it could just vance upon it and hope that there's
> something there, but explicitly stating that an HTTP URI references
> some piece of code is useful).
To me when a person makes up a URI and chooses the HTTP prefix, that *are*
saying that it is vancable (dereferencable ... the representation of the
resource potentially aquireable by a http get) ... but then that seems to
have gotten contorted, conflated, obscured, and confused ... oh well ...
Seth's hopes for a simple universe have never been happening ....
Seth